Construction is one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Every day, workers face risks from heights, heavy machinery, and fast-moving projects. When safety rules are ignored or corners are cut, those risks can turn deadly.

We’ve seen how preventable hazards on construction sites lead to devastating, life-changing losses for families. In wrongful death cases, uncovering every safety violation and identifying every responsible party is essential, and it’s often what makes or breaks a case.

Multi-Party Fault: When Responsibility is Shared

Construction sites are rarely run by one company alone. A general contractor typically oversees the project, but subcontractors carry out much of the work. Each is responsible for their own employees’ safety, and for making sure their work doesn’t create hazards for others. Safety consultants and security providers can also be responsible for failing to properly identify safety hazards or prevent against known environmental risks, including in some instances, third-party criminal conduct when advance notice of the likelihood of harm exists. In cases involving product failures on construction projects, equipment owners and manufacturers can also share responsibility for the harm.

Knowing where to look for potential responsible parties after a construction site death is one area where Altair attorneys excel. Our team partners with industry experts to reconstruct incidents and determine what went wrong. We analyze OSHA/Cal-OSHA records, IIPP and training documents, national and international safety standards, site logs, and witness statements to uncover industry violations.

The Safety Case: Uncovering Rule Violations

Both the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA) set rules for construction safety. These rules cover everything from fall protection and scaffolding standards to equipment maintenance and hazard communication.

When rules aren’t followed, workers face a far greater risk of serious or fatal injury. In a wrongful death case, OSHA or Cal-OSHA violations can help show that the standard of care was breached. Each employer on a construction project also issues their own Injury Illness and Prevention Program (IIPP) and training materials that detail safety rules specific to the trade that must be followed. Violations of IIPP standards and company training materials can also be used to argue standard of care deviations. Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575, 588 [company’s safety rules can establish standard of care]. Finally, safety experts are useful in articulating trade safety standards and can help break down what went wrong and what steps should have been taken to prevent tragedy.

Our team works closely with safety experts to:

• Review all standards and regulations that applied to the incident.
• Identify where compliance failed.
• Collect inspection records, citations, and witness accounts to show patterns of unsafe practice.

Liability and the Privette Doctrine

California law adds another layer: the Privette Doctrine. This rule generally prevents an injured worker (or their family) from suing the party that hired their direct employer. Under Privette, the hirer of a contractor is not liable for on-the-job injuries sustained by that contractor’s employees unless some exception applies. Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689. Knowing the exceptions is key to successfully prosecuting these cases.

One common exception we often see is “retained control” also known as the Hooker exception. The Hooker exception to Privette applies when the hirer “retains control” over the contractor’s work in a way that “affirmatively contributes” to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 201-202.

Another exception is the hirer-landowner and the concealed condition also known as the Kinsman exception. The Kinsman exception to Privette applies when the hirer is a landowner and fails to disclose a known concealed condition that causes harm. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659. Under Kinsman, a “hirer as landowner may be independently liable to [a] contractor’s employee, even if it does not retain control over the work, if: (1) it knows or reasonably should know of a concealed, preexisting hazardous condition on its premises; (2) the contractor does not know and could not reasonably ascertain the condition; and (3) the landowner fails to warn the contractor.” (Id. at 675.)

A third exception is when the hirer provides faulty equipment to the worker also known as the McKown exception. In McKown the court held that “a hirer is liable to an employee of an independent contractor insofar as the hirer’s provision of unsafe equipment affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury.” McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219, 225.

The above three exceptions are just a few examples of how Privette can be defeated and fault against a general contractor can be developed. If you have a challenging construction site wrongful death case and are looking to partner with a team of experienced attorneys who handle construction accident cases give us a call.

Protecting Families, Promoting Safety

No lawsuit can undo the loss of a loved one. But a successful wrongful death case can bring financial stability to a grieving family and push the construction industry toward safer practices.

If you’ve lost a family member in a construction site accident, we can help you understand your rights and options. Our consultations are free, and we work on a contingency-fee basis; you pay nothing unless we win.